Thx for ur reply. So, when Chris Hitchens says "All religions are the Same" I agree that yes all religious institutions are the same. Once any group institutionalizes the prime directive immediately changes to 'preserve the institution at any cost even if it violates what they espouse. But that Hitch and other western atheists behave like Abrahamists and make pronoucements about another worldview they don't even care to educate themselves about; I'd like to bring that into the discussion.
Evil vs Suffering: this is the crux. This is the difference between the monotheistic Abrahamic worldview which generates judaism, christianity and Islam and the Eastern wordlview which generates the pantheistic and non-theistic religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism. The Abrahamic ideological systems are moralistic believing that's morality can be enforced by rules; the Eastern ones are existential; essentially using technques to elimante suffering. The moral philosophy is irrelevant.
> Evil vs Suffering ...This is the difference between the Abrahamic worldview ... and the Eastern wordlview
The Eastern techniques to eliminate suffering seem to fall more in the category of 'philosophy' than religion (such as eliminating suffering by eliminating desire). Yet the notion of "karma" does have morality attached--there are Buddhists (etc.) who believe that babies born deformed are that way b/c they're being punished for crimes in a prior life.
Thx for ur comment. I'm referring here to the worldview's that generate these 'religions' not the institutions thereof and the 100s of techniques. Pholosophical to be sure but the way to eliminate desire is practical; find a technique that works and practice it until it satisfies your heart's real desire for freedom and truth.U want a hand shake it giives u a blowjob. Nothing to condemn, believe or philosophy to adhere to. My point: vastly different than Abrahamic. Not equivalents
Thx for ur comment. I'm referring here to the worldview's that generate these 'religions' not the institutions thereof Pholosophical to be sure but the way to eliminate desire is practical; find a technique that works and practice it until it satisfies your heart's real desire for freedom and truth.eg U want a hand shake it giives u a blowjob. Nothing to condemn, believe or philosophy to adhere to. My point: vastly different than Abrahamic. Not equivalents
@ToddAllenGates I'm referring to the worldview which generates these religions not the institutions thereof. I'm talking about 100s of practical techniques. The way to go beyond suffering is for one to find a technique that works, practice until it satisfies your true heart's desire: freedom, truth. eg U want a handshake it gives U a blowjob! Nothing to condemn, believe no philosophy to adhere to. My point: the eastern worlview vastly different not equivalent to Abrahamic worldview.
@ToddAllenGates I' referring to the worldview that generates these religions not the institutionalization thereof. It is vastly different than Abrahamic. The way to go beyond desires is to find a technique that works, practice it as long as it satisfies ur true heart's desire freedom. Disgard when it doesn't. Ordinary desires become irrelevant. eg U want a handshake it gives a blowjob! Nothing to condmen, believe; no philosophy to adhere to. East vs West worldviews not equivalents.
@ToddAllenGates cont's The most popular Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita is actually a treatise on the 8 limbs of yoga. In their true intention these yoga-s are techniques not moral injuctions. The great moral evil warned of in Bhagavad Gita in "loss of memory," A tractical consideration, not threat of hellfire or of being excluded from the righteous elect.
@ToddAllenGates Yes "Morality attached" Gatuam Buddha was a man who dropped his religion Hinduism and all scriptures, priesthoods sects. Unfortunately, he somehow retained 'karma' which is a device of the priest to control masses with threat and reward. There are 100s of Buddhist sects. They believe all sorts of things. Gautam Buddha warned againt even one! He would have been mortified! Humans find it easier to imitate than to reclaim their own actuality!
My guess is that it's b/c he grew up with the notion, so it was just a "given" ... but it always struck me as curious, b/c here's a religion without apparent gods, yet for Karma to work, it seems like there almost has to be some sort of Divine Overseer / Accountant to make sure the right souls (so to speak) go in the right bodies.
> "Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life."
Hi BarefootID,
I actually don't remember what I said in this video to Epydemic2020 (and I'm too lazy to watch it), but I have a more systematic discussion of the Problem of Suffering in a different video series: "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic." In part 4 (/watch?v=isvaCoxMuoQ&) I discuss the argument that God / the gods include suffering in the Divine Plan because ...
I think that argument works for select circumstances (the alcoholic who turns around his life after losing it all, etc.), but not so well when one considers a wide set of circumstances (such as babies who are born with tortuous skin diseases, and die after a month of living in excruciating pain).
I see. I am an atheist, so I prefer the only 1 naturalistic explanation, but I find fascinating the gospel of Thomas too. Consider for a moment saying 29, I am preparing a video on it. Human life is misery and wealth at the same time. It sounds like a modern thought from Dawkins or Dennett! something of this paradox, I think, is in saying 58.
> He'll probably bring up a common excuse: "original sin isn't a punishment; it's a natural consequence."
I've had Christians say that to me before ... for some reason the argument that God created an earthquake-prone planet as a 'natural consequence' to Eve's fruit snack isn't all that convincing!
I like when speak of logic like believing in GOD is stupid when Einstein,Newton and Oppenheimer believed in the existence of a God. When you actually study bio genetics,and physics you truly see the evidence points toward God. I find the people who understand the least about these subjects defend evidence that is not there.
> god removed a portion of hie sustenance and allowed suffering to happen as a curse for sinning
So you're saying the reason for malaria-spreading mosquitoes, and the earth's moving crust (resulting in earthquakes), is that these things "crept into creation" after God removed a portion of His sustenance? And that God allows the suffering of millions of innocent children b/c of the curse of OTHER people's sins?
How do you reconcile your "B/c of past sinners, God punishes the innocent via disease & earthquake" belief with 2 Kings 14:6: "for the Lord commanded that fathers shall not be killed for their children, nor children for the sins of their fathers: everyone must pay the penalty for his own sins"?
God = love. Love = grace. The original design of the world and everything in it was a utopia of love and grace. There was no death until God first removed His grace that allowed us to live forever. There was no illness nor did animals fear man until after God removed His grace and the flood came. We were all vegetarians and our bodies were perfect, but now we have cancer. Just think about it. What if God removed His grace that allowed the earth to keep its gravity? Thank God for gravity!
> There was no illness nor did animals fear man until after God removed His grace
I'm assuming you're referring to Genesis 3:1719, and the interpretation that Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden brought about God's wrath not only upon themselves, but corrupted the whole planet, causing us to live in a "fallen world."
I'm assuming you believe that once Adam and Eve took a bite of fruit from the forbidden tree, that's when mosquito saliva started to carry malaria, and polar bears started devouring baby seals, and when the earth's crust became giant plates that move and sometime collide into one another, causing devastating earthquakes.
I know theists focus on the words "cursed ground," but in context, the phrase seems to only refer to the difficulties of food gathering:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." - Genesis 3:1719
—or in other words, Genesis 3:1719 serves the role of an explanatory myth, explaining why humans' daily task of feeding themselves can be such a daily hardship. To extrapolate the likes of toddlers with tumors from these few words strikes me as a rationalization stretched beyond the breaking point of believability.
Besides, if the biblical answer to questions like "Why does God permit genocide?" and "Why are there earthquakes?" was as simple as "God cursed the ground: we live in a fallen world," it seems that the character called God would be a bit clearer on this, and that this stance would be stated consistently throughout the Bible (for example, God certainly could have explained this to Job when He spoke from the whirlwind).
The Book of Job is my favorite book in the Bible. But I see it as two independent stories: Story 1 = a short story about a bet between God & Satan in which Job is tested, wins, and is rewarded (the first two chapters, and then the very last six verses); and
Story 2 = a long and complex complaint from Job about the universe's injustice and God's indifference, and this story ends with God's speech from the whirlwind, letting Job know that finite man cannot begin to comprehend the infinite God.
I discuss this interpretation in my video on why the bible is more coherently read from the secular perspective than the religious (watch?v=4CZ8zuwa9ng).
Last point: if you're interested, I'm happy to discuss with you why I believe what I believe. But if you're content with your religious beliefs, then also know that I have not intention of trying to convert you, even if I could (and I know I can't).
When it comes to spirituality, one requires belief in the intangible: 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:22-23. However, the intangible can manifest itself in tangible ways. For example, we cant see magnetism, but we believe that its there because of its evidence. Similarly, we cant see the Creator, but we believe that Hes there because of the creation.
> When it comes to spirituality, one requires belief in the intangible: 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:22-23.
1 Corinthians 13:13: And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Galatians 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
With the exception of "faith," all of these *are* tangible. The evidence of the benefits of life with hope, charity, love, joy, peace, etc. are clear and available to us all, regardless of our religious beliefs (or lack of).
> we can't see the Creator, but we believe that He's there because of the creation.
Even if there is "a" Creator, that doesn't mean "the author of the Universe" = "the author of the Judeo-Christian bible." This Creator might have authored the Koran or the Rig Veda . . . this Creator could have lightly sprinkled Truths in all religions and let us fight over figuring out whose religion is right and whose is wrong . . .
. . . or this Creator might not have anything to do with ANY of our so-called Holy Scriptures or any religious beliefs (written or unwritten). Maybe the Creator that we observe in nature kick-started the Big Bang and created the physical laws of our Universe, and nothing more.
> I dont consider myself to be a theist. In fact, I try to avoid labels altogether.
If you believe there's a god out there, and believe this god expressed His message via a Holy Scripture, what is it about the word "theist" that you object to?
Actually, no. I didnt have Genesis 3:17-19 in mind. Believe it or not, there are other verses in the Bible that back up the fallen world concept such as Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21. Did you look this up online or something? You seem to know just enough to be dangerous.
Okay, then we can skip that particular interpretation of Genesis 3.
> Did you look this up online or something?
Christians co-workers of mine have presented this argument, and *some* Christian apologists too. Ray Comfort, for example, uses it repeatedly, although I know that Christians are not united on this point.
These lines just say that man brought sin upon the world, and therefore death. From a secular perspective, such passages just state the obvious fact that all people die at some point, and add the mystical and unexplained component that this is because of "sin." I see nothing here that ancient people couldn't have just made up completely on their own.
Why would an omnipotent beeing who needs no and does not need to love/worship have to demonstrate that glory to anything/anyone? furthermore if we were made by god that also means we were made by him TO love worshiping. why would god, if he is within himself without want, want make somthing to gratify his "glory" by worshiping him (by design) and making it impossible for fufillment without doing so? that seems self centered also malicious/bad to "punish" a beeing for a failure in his design
The calm debating between both Epydemic2020 and you caused me to subscribe to you both. Frankly his arguments are the better ones, and in each case I can cite empirical examples in the lives of myself and others to demonstrate the veracity of what he said. But the thoughtfulness of your debate is also important to consider. If it's okay with you, I put you in my Atheist Youtubers playlist, and him in my Christian Youtubers playlist.
lucifer was a king, & lucifer is also a coloquialism for satan before defecion, lucifer means light bearer which satan was. I know your worldview, I had once accepted it without looking from another view. You may explain your worldview all you like and assume I know nothing about the bible, but your holding bias views without answers to easy questions. you havent answered the question. If we/angels were created to worship/love god, & god needs no love/worship, then why were we created at all?
Furthermore I read the chapter in my NKJ i recieved as a graduation present. dont assume. Also you didnt answer what my primary question was. you raised a red flag to the one you could blurt out a scripture to and call it answers. there is a difference between an answer to a question and a statement about a question. So Q: If god made man/angels to worship/love him, & he needs no worship/love. Then why did he make us/angels in the first place? Dont preach nonsequiter scripture, answer questions
actually i was "forced" into christianity for 17 years before I was able to think clearly for myself. so you have no point to say i am unbased in my knowledge of theology, im quite certain i know more about world theology/mythology than you. you know what i hold dear and gorify? clarity & high thinking & your right i would have to give up clarity & thinking to worship a deity in any form. and pauls analogy would mean by eating i am worshiping my stomache? nonsense, I eat to live.
I disagree that wildlife suffering is morally neutral if there is no God. Whether or not there is a God, all suffering is a bad thing. A world in which there is less suffering is better than a world in which there is more suffering.
> I disagree that wildlife suffering is morally neutral if there is no God. Whether or not there is a God, all suffering is a bad thing.
While I agree that things like a wasp planting her eggs inside a caterpillar to eat it alive is somewhat horrifying whether or not there's a God, I would only call it "malicious" if there was a god that actually *planned* this macabre mothering.
I notice you couldn't keep a straight face in response to his rabid puppy excuse. I wonder if he intends to argue case by case regarding the boxing day tsunami.
> I wonder if he intends to argue case by case regarding the boxing day tsunami.
Each one of the millions affected must have *somehow* benefited from the suffering—except for the dead 300,000 . . . but I guess they all . . . hmm, deserved it because they were so bad. Or deserved it because they were so *good,* and Jesus wanted to sweep them up to heaven.
furthermore in your scipture it clearly relates to us loving eachother and nothing of the trinity! so riddle me this xxc: Why would God make our purpose to worship (like you said) when we were created if he does not need/want any worship (like you said) why would he have created us or angels for that matter, at all? What other things do Atheists worship?(in the religious sense of worship) your saying very general nonspecific ideas and beeing unclear about the contexts of meanings & concepts.
no I understand your position clearly, but my point is YOU dont understand YOUROWN point clearly. If god does not need to be worshiped why would he make beeings expressly for the purpose of worshiping him Eg. angels and humans. the trinity has absolutely no bearings here its a nonsequiter. citation of satan/lucifer in john, eph. 2 Cor. & 1 peter mainly. and your passage is BS to this contxt, thats reapplying a label of god is love, last time i checked love is love and a god is a god.
Well articulated. In my arguments I like to ask theists if God designed smallpox virus, a pathogen specific to humans, that killed hundreds of millions of humans, torturing billions.Or vibrio cholera bacteria( it has a Flagellum-see Michael Behe). the flagellum allows it to penetrate the mucous lining of the intestine ( a defense) to reach the wall where it has an ingenius ability to cause watery diarrhea which allows it to be expelled to the next wtater sourse so it can torture the nt victim.
> In my arguments I like to ask theists if God designed smallpox ...
The only answers I've received for those types of questions are either (a) God cursed the earth because of human sin (as per Genesis 3:17), or (b) the old "we're too finite to comprehend God" argument.
Have you heard any better theistic responses? Or *any* other theistic response?
William lane Craig says that " suffering maximises the number of saving relationships". It seems that smallpox is an agent he uses to save us! If the goal is knowledge of God and surrender to him, torture and suffering can be a useful tool. Nothing like torture to break the will and point out our arrogence in the face of God!
And in the end , if it saves you and you recieve an eternity of glory, it is all worth it.
scary!!!The rationalisation effort to min cognitive dissonence is amazing.
> If the goal is knowledge of God and surrender to him, torture and suffering can be a useful tool.
It's hard to know where to start with that one! Does the seal who's chewed alive by a killer whale feel closer to God? And what about my relatively comfortable middle-class American existence—does the lack of pain in my life mean God hates me?
> The rationalisation effort to min cognitive dissonence is amazing.
I have had some conversations wrt animal suffering...basically they minimalise it. animals apparently do not suffer the way we do due to limited cognitive power.there may be something to that , but to me, it is obvious that animals do suffer. I have had conversations w JWS who think killer whales may have been vegetarians prior to the fall..lol..snake venom was used to digest fruit.somehow after the fall, it became an anticoagulant or neurotoxin!the egocentrism is staggaring
You forgot "Satan has all the powers of gawd, so satan can do all things gawd did. In this case, satan created the diseases of the world." Ummm wha--?
They EXPLAIN things to me, they were not "commands" that's the key difference here. "If you touch the stove, it will burn you ok? It will hurt", now, I've felt pain before, and I wish to avoid it, so i do not touch it. Now, a command would be "Don't touch the stove", I do not understand the consequences of said action, and am likely to touch it, full explanations of the repercussions of an action are far better than "Commands",
If however, I don't know what "pain" is the chances o back up. Also, depending on the magnitude of the consequence, i have two videos pertaining, vaguely to these issues. Watch them.
so he has to be worshiped? what "perfect" beeing must be worshiped to validate its existance or creative powers? atheists dont argue that we are the center of the universe, they argue we arent and there is no evidence god is. even your argument states that humans are subject to the scrutiny of god in he want for us to worship him. by the transittive if you are wanted by the center of attention you are the center of attention. thats why lucifer defected, do you remember your bible?
> Are you prescribed to any religion or are you a Free Thinker/Atheist?
I'm an atheist, but for the most part, I focus on skepticism of organized religions, not the broad notion of "a Creator." My video series "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers" explains why.
Ha-ha—it's been over 5 years now! (From back when I was that fake Christian on that Apologetic Christian yahoo group.) You can also correctly say that you're the one who persuaded me to discuss my book here on YouTube.
Parent analogy? How about: Your parents have NEVER talked to you ever! You've never seen them, have no photos or memories of them but some guy in a suit tells you that they're real and if you don't love them - they'll torture you forever sometime in the future! Oh wait - there are other guys in suits all claiming that they know your parents and what rules you should follow. Has this ever happened? No. Parents don't behave like gods because parents are real.
But he is NOT admirable. And the orders he gave in the bible, I do not think I could obey, and in the end I STILL do not find that it was good, to end entire civilizations, when he could have revealed himself to them and had them saved that way. If he were the most admirable thing, then we would, automatically admire him, we would not need to be commanded or prompted to such admiration.
Also, my parents never "commanded" me as a child, they explain all consequences, and i follow accordingly. Not "Do this, or else", there was no need for an "Or else", I did the things I was suppose to do because I saw that they were the right things to do. Anything they told me that were "For my own good", they fully explained,and i understood, so they were not commands per se. And if i disagreed, and had a logical reason to, they listened.
We are COMMANDED to worship him...out of love? Since when is the command to worship, out of love? We do admire things, and people, but not because these things or people demand such admiration, but because we give it freely, and if we don't, we are not sent to oblivion. We admire because we think that thing deserves it, yahweh is a monster, regardless of whether or not it created the universe, even if it did I don't think I could admire that.
While I enjoyed this series, there is one issue I must comment on. I completely disagree with the use of "suffering" as a replacement for "evil" and the latter seems a much more apt description of what this problem is all about...
1. The word "evil" has not historically been limited to human choices. Not only has the problem of evil when presented by skeptics usually included mention of disease, famine, disaster, etc., dictionaries also associate the word with these things...
...I'm looking at the OED entry on the word right now, and only when the word is specifically used to describe a person or a person's actions am I seeing it limited in that way. Otherwise, the word is associated with terms like, bad, harm, injury, disease, misfortune, ill, etc.
2. The name "problem of evil" is quite old and established, making it clear what we're talking about, assuming we're talking about the same sort of problem, which I think we are. Apologists have used the free will...
...rebuttal to the problem of evil and, when evils that don't involve human decisions (like earthquakes) are pointed out, apologists fail to address this. They ignore it. I have seen this a LOT. They might also fall back on mumbo jumbo (like we cannot comprehend the infinite), but it seems like the response is usually to just ignore that "free will" doesn't address these things. Changine the name to "problem of suffering" wouldn't seem to help here.
...suffering. If not "evil" I would call it "the problem of bad" or "the problem of harm" rather than limiting it to suffering. For example, an earthquake happens and a man is instantly killed by falling rubble before he even knows what's going on. He did not suffer. I would still consider this to be part of the problem we're talking about. Wouldn't you?
4. Not all suffering is necessarily bad. Actually, I'm not sure how I feel about this point, but I'm throwing it out there...
...just in case. If my own actions cause me mild discomfort and this motivates me to do something good, I don't really consider the minor suffering in this case to be problematic.
Anyway, sorry about spamming your video with comments. I hate the 500-character limit.
> If not "evil" I would call it "the problem of bad" or "the problem of harm" rather than limiting it to suffering.
True, the word "suffering" has its limits as well. Maybe I should say "bad stuff"? Or maybe it's just best to just jump right to the issues and ask "Why did God create the likes tapeworms and tsunamis?"---and thereby avoiding semantics that allow theists to seek refuge in easy answers like "man brings evil upon himself" or "sometimes suffering benefits us."
I remember a case where the theist argued that Trisomy-21 was the effects of sin on the body, and that the imperfections of the eye were caused by sin, so it's very likely they would blame anything on sin, whether it makes sense or not.
How exactly is the comparison between a gazelle/zebra and a rabid puppy about to bite a baby valid? Unless they stampede, you most likely aren't going to find many people dying by these animals. So the original analogy of pushing the boulder at the puppy is still apt... There's still an active will inflicting suffering on a mostly undeserving creature. If you can show me how these herbivores are deserving of suffering, I'd love to hear it.
I would like to know your viewpoints on a couple of these issues.
Is killing wrong, or do circumstances matter? For example, is there a moral difference between killing for fun and killing for self defense?
In the same way, is allowing animal suffering wrong? What are the reasons God allows this? Is it possible God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing creature suffering?
I think it is possible, and I will share a couple of my thoughts in my upcoming response.
circumstances do matter in objective morality. Be careful not to confuse absolute and objective morality. Objective morality merely means it exists regardless of human opinion and does not change based upon human opinion. An action is either moral or immoral based on its circumstances, but does not change with time.
It's very much possible that an all loving deity could decide that there would be a situation which the innocent must suffer for the greater good. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent doesn't though. Omnibenevolence implies outside of restraints on power. It's the common reasosn people give in the First Cause argument... God is outside of this world, and isn't hindered by our problems. If he isn't hindered by our restraints, our moral standards are moot because he wouldn't have to make concessions.
God cannot do the logically impossible. For example, He cannot force free will (and therefore humans can choose to do evil). I made a video called "omni vs omni and really big rocks" which explains that in much more detail.
I will lay out a possible reason I think an all powerful, loving being would allow animal suffering. Stay tuned.
> I will lay out a possible reason I think an all powerful, loving being would allow animal suffering. Stay tuned.
I think the language here should not be that the said-Creator "allows" animal suffering, but *designed* animal suffering—that is, created life in a way that requires creatures to go through terror and pain. To say "God allows animal suffering" sounds like someone else came up with the proposal, and God simply gave it a green light.
But no, if there's a Creator out there that designed all life, the set-up is His alone: the good, bad, & ugly.
*Could* there be a good reason for such a violent arrangement? Absolutely! Looking forward to your perspective (including answers from the alleged Master Designer's alleged Holy Book).
BTW, there's a great video from National Geographic called "Predators and Prey NaTgeO." I have it saved in my favorites. I'm interested in seeing how well your response can make sense out of this video's close-up look at the violently (although with often disturbingly beautiful side effects) genetic arms race of nature.
BONUS ISSUE: I don't know if you want to limit the focus of your upcoming video response to predation, but related to the subject of "things that you would think an Omnipotent Loving God wouldn't create" is birth defects (at least those inherent in nature, rather than those caused by man's pollutants).
2 of 7: A particularly shocking birth defect is harlequin ichthyosis, a skin disease that affects a small minority of both humans and animals. This disease makes the skin is so thick that it cannot fold and becomes the equivalent of large scales, and movement causes the skin to crack.
3 of 7: Sufferers are also facially deformed: their ears, nose, and eyelids are either partially developed or entirely absent. Their lips are pulled by their dry skin and fixed into a wide grimace. Their arms, feet, and fingers are almost always deformed in such a way that they cannot bend properly.
4 of 7: Harlequin ichthyosis usually kills its victims within a few days: their thick skin doesn't allow for normal heat regulation, it restricts normal breathing, and their cracked & broken skin doesn't adequately keep water in or keep bacteria out (thus they usually die from infection).
5 of 7: Search on YouTube for "harlequin ichthyosis" and you'll get lots of videos of these babies. But the disease strikes animals too: the article "Harlequin Ichthyosis in Two Greater Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros)" discusses calves with the disease, and the article "Harlequin ichthyosis (ichq): a juvenile lethal mouse mutation with ichthyosiform dermatitis" discusses mice.
6 of 7: Again, I'm not saying an Omnipotent Deity COULDN'T have a Loving Reason for creating harlequin ichthyosis . . . but I think the question "Why would God do this?" is a legitimate one. After all, when humans inflict birth defects on others (via pollutants or unsafe medication), they're not at all considered "good"--instead, they're persecuted for crimes.
7 of 7: Yet if the Christian God is the one to inflict birth defects, Christians would never (or least, rarely) accuse Him of committing a crime—at least not out loud.
Still, many Christians *are* privately tortured with the question of "WHY did God do this?" To quote from Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Faith," the problem of apparently purposeless pain is "the question mark turned like a fishhook in the human heart" (pg 28).
You're confusing the way things are with the way things should be according to logic. It's somewhat like you saying the dog being crushed is a logical absolute, or it's logically unalterable that the gazelle be eaten by the lion instead of a system of photosynthesis for all creatures, or (as is our case) the ability to create all the proteins we need, without relying on other creatures to make it for us.How is that denied by logic? My computer is shot, so I'll watch the video once it's repaired.
I am not confusing a physical and a logical contradiction.
Lets take "forced free will" for instance. "free" and "forced" are contradictory terms. The second law of logic (the law of non-contradiction) shows us something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. Because free and forced are opposites, a persons will cannot be both free and forced, it must be one or the other. To say God should make forced free will, is to say He should do the logically contradictory.
I was arguing that "forcing free will" is logically impossible, not that the gazelle being eaten was the only logically possible scenario.
God did, could, and will create a world without animal suffering. However, on earth animal suffering is better than the other alternatives. I argue for that more clearly in my video response.
Your main point in your response, actually dealing with this specific point of suffering, seemed to be that there is no justification to claim that Yahweh allows suffering with malice as his intent, and so we can't label his actions as evil. If that's not accurate, please correct me.
With this summation, I disagree. A common story I hear being a psychology major is of a woman who is murdered in her apartment complex while the other neighbors just listen to her yelling. (con't.)
When people are told of this story, they instantly claim that those who are not doing what is in their power to help are doing wrong, whether they are being malicious or not. Whether that's a good conclusion, it makes the point that with this society at least, it's considered bad to not do what you can to help others, with reasonable restrictions. In this sense, Yahweh has plenty of ability (omniscience and omnipotence) and yet watches on as the suffering occurs.
We could even make a case that he, in the prior example, set it up so the woman would be murdered. Out of all the arrangements, his omniscience and omnipotence made it a world where animals, including us, would be unable to survive without other animals making our proteins and energy. Unless you wish to redefine omniscience, Yahweh would know when creating on that first day what his creation would lead to, and instead of allowing the animals the ability to produce whatever they need, he kept it.
You omitt that God can, did, and will make a world void of animal suffering (eden and heaven). Animal suffering exists on this earth, but the remedies to fix it are more costly than the price of allowing it. That is my argument from the "irregular world".
You could also argue God could create a world that would work perfectly without Him. However, I would argue that would be the ultimate deception.
Whether Yahweh has done it in the past is a question of faith to begin with, but to grant that the several billion years that has been which there has been suffering is nothing compared to the time without suffering during Eden, assuming it ever existed, and the time that will come (so we keep getting told) is hardly tenable. It still doesn't avoid the fact that Yahweh decided that this suffering was worth it, despite it's being wholly unnecessary, given the omniscience and omnipotence aspect.
I have a hard time finding your arguments involving length of time persuasive. You seem to be saying that a few billion years allowing suffering which may lead to a greater number of people experiencing an eternal bliss in heaven is somehow not worth it.
You can argue whether or not you think Christianity is true in its claims (a separate argument), but the problem of animal suffering does little to nothing to bring to question the consistency of Christian teachings.
I have a hard time finding the idea that an omnipotent deity would prefer to allow his creation to suffer unnecessarily, which is what the gazelle being eaten is, when the application of a different way is conceivable by people who are much less than omnipotent unpersuasive. If I'm able to conceive of something that allows less suffering, and I'm not omnipotent and hardly loving of most things, then I'm fairly sure that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity could do it without problem.
I have not argued that God cannot physically make a world without suffering. In fact, it would be very easy for God to divinely intervene and stop every instance of potential animal suffering. But who is to say that a world with God intervening all the time is superior to the world we currently have?
I've never said we would need Yahweh to intervene. I said that it wouldn't be too complicated to make it so that unnecessary suffering is avoidable. Going back to the original statement, way back in the beginning, the gazelle is being eaten alive because the lion requires the protein and energy which is stored in the gazelle. Without that requirement, all the suffering caused by predation is gone, with a few relatively simple changes to birth rate, and the animals ability to generate energy.
Again, I'm not omnipotent, and hardly as wise as the Bible makes Yahweh out to be. It would be a bit of time thinking on it for a human, but a deity with eternity, especially considering all evidence shows that there was some nearly 10 billion years before Earth shows up, it's not too hard.
On the otherhand, having the animals create their own energy would also have the benefit of fitting much more literally with the OT, what with the lack of change in species without the predation.
Who says what you think is "free will" is, indeed, free will? And what even constitutes free will in the first place? Who says humans really posses such a thing?
Isn't it a bit cruel though? I mean, it is the nature of humans to, in a way, NOT want to worship some being for all eternity. As you say, most people wouldn't want that, so why make beings which only have one purpose, that is...to worship you and make you feel like number 1 when you already know for a fact that you ARE number one? I mean, how needy do you have to be? lol, Why would you punish something for acting in concordance with its nature? It just seems strange.
why would a god crave so much worship and glory? Is it so insecure of itself that it needs constant praise? What about the quality of being humble... I guess god is simply no model for us to live by.
Thanks for the response. I almost didn't catch you had posted this video.
lol. My rabies/puppy analogy sounds quite ridiculous. I didn't realize that was going to make it into a video. I was just trying to demonstrate that an act is only moral or immoral given the specific circumstances.
This is a fairly accurate assessment of my position. I hold there is no reason to suspect animal suffering is evil. To do so you would have to assume the existence of suffering is malicious. I think we not only have insufficient evidence to make that claim, but also that we have good reasons to believe the contrary.
I will try and explains this better in my response. It may take me a bit longer than I intended, I have apparently caught I virus. I think that is somewhat ironic.
> To [say animal suffering is evil] you would have to assume the existence of suffering is malicious.
I think we agree that if a *human* were to buy dozens of dogs and arranged it so that they could only survive by ripping each other apart / feasting on each others' live flesh, that would be malicious. Especially because there are so many options for *not* causing suffering: buying dog food from the store, buying only however many dogs you could afford, etc.
Yet if an Intelligent Designer created all life, He did indeed organize much of life so that its survival depends on making others suffer. That in itself is no paradox, because the Intelligent Design argument doesn't necessitate that God is All-Powerful or All-Good.
Yet the Christian notion of God tells us that the Master Designer of nature, red in tooth and claw, is both All-Powerful (meaning He could design any life he wanted) *and* All-Good—which, at least by our *human* definition of good, implies a being who would NOT want to cause needless suffering.
Can suffering be purposeful and "good"? Absolutely! The needle of a vaccination, shoving someone out of the way of an oncoming car: these instances cause temporary suffering, but they serve a Greater Purpose.
*Could* there be a Greater Good behind sentencing a fawn's last seconds on earth to whimpering in fear before she is torn apart by a pack of wolves? Well, maybe there is!
But so far the only reasons I've come across from Christians are:
(1) a bizarre interpretation of Genesis 3:17 ("Well, when God cursed the ground in reaction to human sin . . . that must have been what kicked off the whole prey-vs-predator setup),
(2) I just don't understand this aspect of God (variances: "we're too finite to comprehend the Infinite," "part of being a person of faith is living with unanswered questions," etc.)
> I will explain this better in my response. It may take me a [while], I have caught a virus. I think that is somewhat ironic.
I'll refrain from making any poor-taste theological jokes—hope you feel better soon!
(Taking a while to respond is certainly fine with me, as I really *should* be focusing on my job right now instead of on YouTube. As an atheist, however, I'm of course NOT saying that God made you sick in order to slow you up so I could concentrate on my work!)
you say that the existence of god cannot be disproven,but only logically imbalanced (an appropriate term i guess),the fact of the matter is that the belief is age old information and therefore-IN MY OPINION,it should have been disregarded a very long time ago because all this dwelling on it by theists is only creating problems in the world.
"god is punishing us through human suffereing"...this is a very dangerous and lazy way to think.
> [suffering is punishment] is a very dangerous and lazy way to think
It also simply doesn't make sense of observations. It would have us believe that antelopes need "more punishment" than elephants, and the starving 3rd world children need more punishment than godless middle-class Americans such as myself.
i agree,and this is how religion and politics are similar,politics creates problems in the physical world as religion fabricated god,faking reality (mysticism) to convince people to "help" others by throwing their hard earned money providing only a temporary solution,no problems created-no bogus livelihoods.
people fear imprisonment so they "behave" themselves,people fear death so they deny themselves for god so they can get into heaven.
It seem like a perfect, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator could have at a minimum created a universe that was consistent with a universe created by a perfect, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator. From my perspective the universe looks just the opposite.
> From my perspective the universe looks just the opposite.
I feel that one thing that gives the theists ammo is that if you take a *highly selective* look at nature, you really can see much beauty and even appearances of "perfection."
As I wrote in a comment in response to Epydemic, he can admire the beauty of the gazelle in flight, but has to block out the reason that it's running.
It may not make the Christian God impossible, but it must change the qualities we attribute to the Christian God. Suffering and hell must shoot down the notion of either benevolence and/or omnipotence. You can' just change the definition of those terms - that is not a fair argument, that is logocide.
But what if the baby about to be bitten by a rabid puppy in the path of an incoming boulder was about to press a button to open the door to a cage of wild hyenas outside of which an innocent gazelle was grazing on grass?
I think that's morally acceptable, because it will save that poor grass!
> But what if the baby about to be bitten by a rabid puppy in the path of an incoming boulder was about to press a button to open the door to a cage of wild hyenas outside of which an innocent gazelle was grazing on grass? I think that's morally acceptable, because it will save that poor grass!
I can disprove an invisible pink unicorn. 1) Without light there is no color. 2) To become invisible, a unicorn would have to bend light around it. Therefore, the unicorn could not be both pink and invisible at the same time. I can not, however, disprove the existence of an invisible unicorn.
> I can disprove an invisible pink unicorn. 1) Without light there is no color. 2) To become invisible, a unicorn would have to bend light around it. Therefore, the unicorn could not be both pink and invisible at the same time.
Faith in Her Majestic Pinkness *transcends* humans' puny attempt at logic!
Adaptions that are in themselves incredible but seem to cause excessive suffering are not the only way of looking at it. What about suboptimal adaptions such as the inside-out retinas of vertebrates or the fact our food and air tubes fuse in our throats? These not only make us less fit as organisms, they also cause actual suffering.
> What about suboptimal adaptions such as the inside-out retinas of vertebrates or the fact our food and air tubes fuse in our throats? These not only make us less fit as organisms, they also cause actual suffering
Very well said—although I suppose the theist could always say that such instances of suffering "benefits" us (albeit in mysterious ways!).
Chew your food. Ah yes, choking, (possibly to death) reminds us this. I benefit from weeding my garden too, as the healthy exercise reminds me that to create requires hard work.
Either that or they say that this is the curse of sin, inwhich case they must admit that adam and eve were very definitely not human anyway, at least to start with. Which possibly leads to the admission that living things have changed over time (shhhhhh), ;)
> but don't most Christians simply go, "We live in a fallen Earth"... Argument over...?
Oddly enough, Epydemic doesn't (although I discuss that argument in my video series on "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Reasons vs. the 1 Naturalistic").
"What if the puppy has rabies and was about to bite a baby?" That begs the question "What in that case accounts for the rabies and the aggressive instinct to bite?" If you use prevention of suffering as an excuse for the existence of a lesser suffering, then you have to account for even more of it, making your position that much worse.
> If you use prevention of suffering as an excuse for the existence of a lesser suffering, then you have to account for even more of it, making your position that much worse
Very nicely done. Excellent job distinguishing between the "problem of evil" and the "problem of suffering." The latter is indeed *far* more challenging and, better still, far more reflective of the facts of reality.
Epydemic is a nice guy, but he often gives me the impression that he's just throwing against the wall whatever and as much as he can think of and hoping that at least some of it will stick.
> Epydemic is a nice guy, but he often gives me the impression that he's just throwing against the wall whatever and as much as he can think of and hoping that at least some of it will stick.
He's also only 21, and I have to admit that he's far more articulate than I was at his age . . . this is why I end this series by saying that as he further hones his arguments he may just end up a skeptic—and if so, I think he would be an excellent one!
Indeed. By the way, my remark wasn't intended to be harsh. It was in the spirit of what I might write on an articulate student's paper that did the same thing.
Great job Todd. I often run into the 'but we are in a 'fallen creation" response when I ask about suffering in nature - ichneumon wasps and other nasties. That implies that 'sin' has a creative force, for which they have no response. It's as if all was perfection in Eden until the fall and after that all restraint was taken off nature (Pandora's box was opened - to borrow from the Greeks) and we get things like bubonic plague, Downs syndrome etc, etc.. Thanks for the shout out to the IPU! (pbuh)
> I often run into the 'but we are in a 'fallen creation" response when I ask about suffering in nature
I discuss that argument in my video series on "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Reasons vs. the 1 Naturalistic" . . . but since Epydemic doesn't use it, I didn't feel the need to bring it up.
Wildlife suffering is morally neutral? A world with creature suffering is a worse world than one without. Why would the creator allow rabies to infect the puppy in the first place?
It doesn't matter if natural laws are considered evil, since they are not (by definition) good; the problem of suffering is only a problem for the a benevolent God, of the kind that would resurrect us after death or send his son to die for our sins.
Thx for ur reply. So, when Chris Hitchens says "All religions are the Same" I agree that yes all religious institutions are the same. Once any group institutionalizes the prime directive immediately changes to 'preserve the institution at any cost even if it violates what they espouse. But that Hitch and other western atheists behave like Abrahamists and make pronoucements about another worldview they don't even care to educate themselves about; I'd like to bring that into the discussion.
Antarblue 7 months ago
@Antarblue
> I'd like to bring that into the discussion
Yes, good point.
ToddAllenGates 7 months ago
Evil vs Suffering: this is the crux. This is the difference between the monotheistic Abrahamic worldview which generates judaism, christianity and Islam and the Eastern wordlview which generates the pantheistic and non-theistic religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism. The Abrahamic ideological systems are moralistic believing that's morality can be enforced by rules; the Eastern ones are existential; essentially using technques to elimante suffering. The moral philosophy is irrelevant.
Antarblue 7 months ago
@Antarblue
> Evil vs Suffering ...This is the difference between the Abrahamic worldview ... and the Eastern wordlview
The Eastern techniques to eliminate suffering seem to fall more in the category of 'philosophy' than religion (such as eliminating suffering by eliminating desire). Yet the notion of "karma" does have morality attached--there are Buddhists (etc.) who believe that babies born deformed are that way b/c they're being punished for crimes in a prior life.
ToddAllenGates 7 months ago
Thx for ur comment. I'm referring here to the worldview's that generate these 'religions' not the institutions thereof and the 100s of techniques. Pholosophical to be sure but the way to eliminate desire is practical; find a technique that works and practice it until it satisfies your heart's real desire for freedom and truth.U want a hand shake it giives u a blowjob. Nothing to condemn, believe or philosophy to adhere to. My point: vastly different than Abrahamic. Not equivalents
Antarblue 7 months ago
@Antarblue
> My point: vastly different than Abrahamic. Not equivalents
Yes, agreed.
ToddAllenGates 7 months ago
Thx for ur comment. I'm referring here to the worldview's that generate these 'religions' not the institutions thereof Pholosophical to be sure but the way to eliminate desire is practical; find a technique that works and practice it until it satisfies your heart's real desire for freedom and truth.eg U want a hand shake it giives u a blowjob. Nothing to condemn, believe or philosophy to adhere to. My point: vastly different than Abrahamic. Not equivalents
Antarblue 7 months ago
@ToddAllenGates I'm referring to the worldview which generates these religions not the institutions thereof. I'm talking about 100s of practical techniques. The way to go beyond suffering is for one to find a technique that works, practice until it satisfies your true heart's desire: freedom, truth. eg U want a handshake it gives U a blowjob! Nothing to condemn, believe no philosophy to adhere to. My point: the eastern worlview vastly different not equivalent to Abrahamic worldview.
Antarblue 7 months ago
@ToddAllenGates I' referring to the worldview that generates these religions not the institutionalization thereof. It is vastly different than Abrahamic. The way to go beyond desires is to find a technique that works, practice it as long as it satisfies ur true heart's desire freedom. Disgard when it doesn't. Ordinary desires become irrelevant. eg U want a handshake it gives a blowjob! Nothing to condmen, believe; no philosophy to adhere to. East vs West worldviews not equivalents.
Antarblue 7 months ago
@ToddAllenGates cont's The most popular Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita is actually a treatise on the 8 limbs of yoga. In their true intention these yoga-s are techniques not moral injuctions. The great moral evil warned of in Bhagavad Gita in "loss of memory," A tractical consideration, not threat of hellfire or of being excluded from the righteous elect.
Antarblue 7 months ago
@ToddAllenGates Yes "Morality attached" Gatuam Buddha was a man who dropped his religion Hinduism and all scriptures, priesthoods sects. Unfortunately, he somehow retained 'karma' which is a device of the priest to control masses with threat and reward. There are 100s of Buddhist sects. They believe all sorts of things. Gautam Buddha warned againt even one! He would have been mortified! Humans find it easier to imitate than to reclaim their own actuality!
Antarblue 7 months ago
@Antarblue
> Unfortunately, he somehow retained 'karma'
My guess is that it's b/c he grew up with the notion, so it was just a "given" ... but it always struck me as curious, b/c here's a religion without apparent gods, yet for Karma to work, it seems like there almost has to be some sort of Divine Overseer / Accountant to make sure the right souls (so to speak) go in the right bodies.
ToddAllenGates 7 months ago
I think you could find interesting this saying (it is number 58) from the gospel of Thomas:
Jesus said, "Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life."
barefootID 8 months ago
@barefootID
1 of 2:
> "Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life."
Hi BarefootID,
I actually don't remember what I said in this video to Epydemic2020 (and I'm too lazy to watch it), but I have a more systematic discussion of the Problem of Suffering in a different video series: "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic." In part 4 (/watch?v=isvaCoxMuoQ&) I discuss the argument that God / the gods include suffering in the Divine Plan because ...
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
2 of 2:
... of the benefits ("finding life," etc.).
I think that argument works for select circumstances (the alcoholic who turns around his life after losing it all, etc.), but not so well when one considers a wide set of circumstances (such as babies who are born with tortuous skin diseases, and die after a month of living in excruciating pain).
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
@ToddAllenGates
I see. I am an atheist, so I prefer the only 1 naturalistic explanation, but I find fascinating the gospel of Thomas too. Consider for a moment saying 29, I am preparing a video on it. Human life is misery and wealth at the same time. It sounds like a modern thought from Dawkins or Dennett! something of this paradox, I think, is in saying 58.
barefootID 8 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
> He'll probably bring up a common excuse: "original sin isn't a punishment; it's a natural consequence."
I've had Christians say that to me before ... for some reason the argument that God created an earthquake-prone planet as a 'natural consequence' to Eve's fruit snack isn't all that convincing!
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
> The more Christians attempt to explain away the Problem of Suffering, the more sociopathic they invariably become
Or at least the dizzier they must become, from all the spins they need to put on logic.
ToddAllenGates 9 months ago
I like when speak of logic like believing in GOD is stupid when Einstein,Newton and Oppenheimer believed in the existence of a God. When you actually study bio genetics,and physics you truly see the evidence points toward God. I find the people who understand the least about these subjects defend evidence that is not there.
knight996 1 year ago
@knight996 Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He was a pantheist and thought the universe was god.
Drgamedood 10 months ago
We have all sinned we have all lied,hated,lusted we will all be without accuse before a just Holy God.
knight996 1 year ago
god did not make suffering. he removed a portion of hie sustenance and allowed suffering to happen as a curse for sinning
CaptainHanneman 1 year ago
@CaptainHanneman
1 of 2:
> god removed a portion of hie sustenance and allowed suffering to happen as a curse for sinning
So you're saying the reason for malaria-spreading mosquitoes, and the earth's moving crust (resulting in earthquakes), is that these things "crept into creation" after God removed a portion of His sustenance? And that God allows the suffering of millions of innocent children b/c of the curse of OTHER people's sins?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
How do you reconcile your "B/c of past sinners, God punishes the innocent via disease & earthquake" belief with 2 Kings 14:6: "for the Lord commanded that fathers shall not be killed for their children, nor children for the sins of their fathers: everyone must pay the penalty for his own sins"?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
God = love. Love = grace. The original design of the world and everything in it was a utopia of love and grace. There was no death until God first removed His grace that allowed us to live forever. There was no illness nor did animals fear man until after God removed His grace and the flood came. We were all vegetarians and our bodies were perfect, but now we have cancer. Just think about it. What if God removed His grace that allowed the earth to keep its gravity? Thank God for gravity!
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
@DarwinsAMonkeyInHell
1 of 5:
> There was no illness nor did animals fear man until after God removed His grace
I'm assuming you're referring to Genesis 3:1719, and the interpretation that Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden brought about God's wrath not only upon themselves, but corrupted the whole planet, causing us to live in a "fallen world."
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 5:
I'm assuming you believe that once Adam and Eve took a bite of fruit from the forbidden tree, that's when mosquito saliva started to carry malaria, and polar bears started devouring baby seals, and when the earth's crust became giant plates that move and sometime collide into one another, causing devastating earthquakes.
But does the Bible even say this?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 5:
I know theists focus on the words "cursed ground," but in context, the phrase seems to only refer to the difficulties of food gathering:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." - Genesis 3:1719
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
4 of 5:
—or in other words, Genesis 3:1719 serves the role of an explanatory myth, explaining why humans' daily task of feeding themselves can be such a daily hardship. To extrapolate the likes of toddlers with tumors from these few words strikes me as a rationalization stretched beyond the breaking point of believability.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
5 of 5:
Besides, if the biblical answer to questions like "Why does God permit genocide?" and "Why are there earthquakes?" was as simple as "God cursed the ground: we live in a fallen world," it seems that the character called God would be a bit clearer on this, and that this stance would be stated consistently throughout the Bible (for example, God certainly could have explained this to Job when He spoke from the whirlwind).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
"Why does God permit genocide?"
Theres a difference between when God decides to clean things up and when God leaves us to our own devices.
God certainly could have explained this to Job when He spoke from the whirlwind
Dont worry about Job. Im pretty sure that he figured it out when he received his reward in the end.
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
@DarwinsAMonkeyInHell
1 of 3:
> Don't worry about Job.
The Book of Job is my favorite book in the Bible. But I see it as two independent stories: Story 1 = a short story about a bet between God & Satan in which Job is tested, wins, and is rewarded (the first two chapters, and then the very last six verses); and
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 3:
Story 2 = a long and complex complaint from Job about the universe's injustice and God's indifference, and this story ends with God's speech from the whirlwind, letting Job know that finite man cannot begin to comprehend the infinite God.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 3:
I discuss this interpretation in my video on why the bible is more coherently read from the secular perspective than the religious (watch?v=4CZ8zuwa9ng).
Last point: if you're interested, I'm happy to discuss with you why I believe what I believe. But if you're content with your religious beliefs, then also know that I have not intention of trying to convert you, even if I could (and I know I can't).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
When it comes to spirituality, one requires belief in the intangible: 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:22-23. However, the intangible can manifest itself in tangible ways. For example, we cant see magnetism, but we believe that its there because of its evidence. Similarly, we cant see the Creator, but we believe that Hes there because of the creation.
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
@DarwinsAMonkeyInHell
1 of 4:
> When it comes to spirituality, one requires belief in the intangible: 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:22-23.
1 Corinthians 13:13: And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Galatians 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 4:
With the exception of "faith," all of these *are* tangible. The evidence of the benefits of life with hope, charity, love, joy, peace, etc. are clear and available to us all, regardless of our religious beliefs (or lack of).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 4:
> we can't see the Creator, but we believe that He's there because of the creation.
Even if there is "a" Creator, that doesn't mean "the author of the Universe" = "the author of the Judeo-Christian bible." This Creator might have authored the Koran or the Rig Veda . . . this Creator could have lightly sprinkled Truths in all religions and let us fight over figuring out whose religion is right and whose is wrong . . .
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
4 of 4:
. . . or this Creator might not have anything to do with ANY of our so-called Holy Scriptures or any religious beliefs (written or unwritten). Maybe the Creator that we observe in nature kick-started the Big Bang and created the physical laws of our Universe, and nothing more.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
I dont consider myself to be a theist. In fact, I try to avoid labels altogether.
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
@DarwinsAMonkeyInHell
> I dont consider myself to be a theist. In fact, I try to avoid labels altogether.
If you believe there's a god out there, and believe this god expressed His message via a Holy Scripture, what is it about the word "theist" that you object to?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Yes.
In the book of Job, a natural disaster kills his children and he becomes diseased all because God removed His grace from upon him.
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Actually, no. I didnt have Genesis 3:17-19 in mind. Believe it or not, there are other verses in the Bible that back up the fallen world concept such as Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21. Did you look this up online or something? You seem to know just enough to be dangerous.
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
@DarwinsAMonkeyInHell
1 of 3:
> I didn't have Genesis 3:17-19 in mind.
Okay, then we can skip that particular interpretation of Genesis 3.
> Did you look this up online or something?
Christians co-workers of mine have presented this argument, and *some* Christian apologists too. Ray Comfort, for example, uses it repeatedly, although I know that Christians are not united on this point.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 3:
> there are other verses in the Bible that back up the fallen world concept such as Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21.
Romans 5:12: " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
1 Corinthians 15:21: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 3:
These lines just say that man brought sin upon the world, and therefore death. From a secular perspective, such passages just state the obvious fact that all people die at some point, and add the mystical and unexplained component that this is because of "sin." I see nothing here that ancient people couldn't have just made up completely on their own.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarwinsAMonkeyInHell 1 year ago
Occam + Contemporary Science makes all these arguments an almost complete waste of time
Their remaining purpose is to execise the mind
However that would be better excercised by ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING PRACTICAL to avoid the impending Malthusian crisis
beachcomber2008 2 years ago
(9) Humans are too finite to comprehend an Infinite God.
"a nothing is as good as a something about which nothing can be said" --Wittgenstein
ReligionIsACrutch 2 years ago
> "a nothing is as good as a something about which nothing can be said"
Or it pertains to "the divine," perhaps it should be phrased "a something about which nothing can be said is as good as nothing."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
If a god needs to be worshipped, it has a mental disorder. Kings wanted to be worshipped, and we all know how weak minded they were.
ScottJanssen 2 years ago
Why would an omnipotent beeing who needs no and does not need to love/worship have to demonstrate that glory to anything/anyone? furthermore if we were made by god that also means we were made by him TO love worshiping. why would god, if he is within himself without want, want make somthing to gratify his "glory" by worshiping him (by design) and making it impossible for fufillment without doing so? that seems self centered also malicious/bad to "punish" a beeing for a failure in his design
verumINscientia 2 years ago 3
Verum
I attempt to answer the questions you present in my video two videos titled "why did God create".
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
will check out
verumINscientia 2 years ago
The calm debating between both Epydemic2020 and you caused me to subscribe to you both. Frankly his arguments are the better ones, and in each case I can cite empirical examples in the lives of myself and others to demonstrate the veracity of what he said. But the thoughtfulness of your debate is also important to consider. If it's okay with you, I put you in my Atheist Youtubers playlist, and him in my Christian Youtubers playlist.
Thanks again.
brainouty 2 years ago
> the thoughtfulness of your debate is also important to consider. If it's okay with you, I put you in my Atheist Youtubers playlist . . .
Thanks—I'm honored!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
lucifer was a king, & lucifer is also a coloquialism for satan before defecion, lucifer means light bearer which satan was. I know your worldview, I had once accepted it without looking from another view. You may explain your worldview all you like and assume I know nothing about the bible, but your holding bias views without answers to easy questions. you havent answered the question. If we/angels were created to worship/love god, & god needs no love/worship, then why were we created at all?
verumINscientia 2 years ago
Furthermore I read the chapter in my NKJ i recieved as a graduation present. dont assume. Also you didnt answer what my primary question was. you raised a red flag to the one you could blurt out a scripture to and call it answers. there is a difference between an answer to a question and a statement about a question. So Q: If god made man/angels to worship/love him, & he needs no worship/love. Then why did he make us/angels in the first place? Dont preach nonsequiter scripture, answer questions
verumINscientia 2 years ago
actually i was "forced" into christianity for 17 years before I was able to think clearly for myself. so you have no point to say i am unbased in my knowledge of theology, im quite certain i know more about world theology/mythology than you. you know what i hold dear and gorify? clarity & high thinking & your right i would have to give up clarity & thinking to worship a deity in any form. and pauls analogy would mean by eating i am worshiping my stomache? nonsense, I eat to live.
verumINscientia 2 years ago
I disagree that wildlife suffering is morally neutral if there is no God. Whether or not there is a God, all suffering is a bad thing. A world in which there is less suffering is better than a world in which there is more suffering.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
> I disagree that wildlife suffering is morally neutral if there is no God. Whether or not there is a God, all suffering is a bad thing.
While I agree that things like a wasp planting her eggs inside a caterpillar to eat it alive is somewhat horrifying whether or not there's a God, I would only call it "malicious" if there was a god that actually *planned* this macabre mothering.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I notice you couldn't keep a straight face in response to his rabid puppy excuse. I wonder if he intends to argue case by case regarding the boxing day tsunami.
hilbert54 2 years ago
> I wonder if he intends to argue case by case regarding the boxing day tsunami.
Each one of the millions affected must have *somehow* benefited from the suffering—except for the dead 300,000 . . . but I guess they all . . . hmm, deserved it because they were so bad. Or deserved it because they were so *good,* and Jesus wanted to sweep them up to heaven.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
furthermore in your scipture it clearly relates to us loving eachother and nothing of the trinity! so riddle me this xxc: Why would God make our purpose to worship (like you said) when we were created if he does not need/want any worship (like you said) why would he have created us or angels for that matter, at all? What other things do Atheists worship?(in the religious sense of worship) your saying very general nonspecific ideas and beeing unclear about the contexts of meanings & concepts.
verumINscientia 2 years ago
no I understand your position clearly, but my point is YOU dont understand YOUROWN point clearly. If god does not need to be worshiped why would he make beeings expressly for the purpose of worshiping him Eg. angels and humans. the trinity has absolutely no bearings here its a nonsequiter. citation of satan/lucifer in john, eph. 2 Cor. & 1 peter mainly. and your passage is BS to this contxt, thats reapplying a label of god is love, last time i checked love is love and a god is a god.
verumINscientia 2 years ago
Well articulated. In my arguments I like to ask theists if God designed smallpox virus, a pathogen specific to humans, that killed hundreds of millions of humans, torturing billions.Or vibrio cholera bacteria( it has a Flagellum-see Michael Behe). the flagellum allows it to penetrate the mucous lining of the intestine ( a defense) to reach the wall where it has an ingenius ability to cause watery diarrhea which allows it to be expelled to the next wtater sourse so it can torture the nt victim.
adstanra 2 years ago
> In my arguments I like to ask theists if God designed smallpox ...
The only answers I've received for those types of questions are either (a) God cursed the earth because of human sin (as per Genesis 3:17), or (b) the old "we're too finite to comprehend God" argument.
Have you heard any better theistic responses? Or *any* other theistic response?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
William lane Craig says that " suffering maximises the number of saving relationships". It seems that smallpox is an agent he uses to save us! If the goal is knowledge of God and surrender to him, torture and suffering can be a useful tool. Nothing like torture to break the will and point out our arrogence in the face of God!
And in the end , if it saves you and you recieve an eternity of glory, it is all worth it.
scary!!!The rationalisation effort to min cognitive dissonence is amazing.
adstanra 2 years ago
> If the goal is knowledge of God and surrender to him, torture and suffering can be a useful tool.
It's hard to know where to start with that one! Does the seal who's chewed alive by a killer whale feel closer to God? And what about my relatively comfortable middle-class American existence—does the lack of pain in my life mean God hates me?
> The rationalisation effort to min cognitive dissonence is amazing.
Yes—stunning!!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I have had some conversations wrt animal suffering...basically they minimalise it. animals apparently do not suffer the way we do due to limited cognitive power.there may be something to that , but to me, it is obvious that animals do suffer. I have had conversations w JWS who think killer whales may have been vegetarians prior to the fall..lol..snake venom was used to digest fruit.somehow after the fall, it became an anticoagulant or neurotoxin!the egocentrism is staggaring
adstanra 2 years ago
You forgot "Satan has all the powers of gawd, so satan can do all things gawd did. In this case, satan created the diseases of the world." Ummm wha--?
LeksServices 2 years ago
They EXPLAIN things to me, they were not "commands" that's the key difference here. "If you touch the stove, it will burn you ok? It will hurt", now, I've felt pain before, and I wish to avoid it, so i do not touch it. Now, a command would be "Don't touch the stove", I do not understand the consequences of said action, and am likely to touch it, full explanations of the repercussions of an action are far better than "Commands",
Ravindra9689 2 years ago
If however, I don't know what "pain" is the chances o back up. Also, depending on the magnitude of the consequence, i have two videos pertaining, vaguely to these issues. Watch them.
/watch?v=z7hivC6kwAk (1)
/watch?v=Yv72MUUkiUI (2)
Ravindra9689 2 years ago
Well done! Separating 'evil' from 'suffering' is a good idea since the one does not imply the other.
Many gods find acts like eating shellfish to be evil while condoning slavery, so it's difficult to get a grasp on 'evil'.
Suffering on the other hand is easy to define and understand.
proudfootz 2 years ago
> ... acts like eating shellfish to be evil while condoning slavery, so it's difficult to get a grasp on 'evil.'
Truly, God works in mysteriously slippery ways!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
so he has to be worshiped? what "perfect" beeing must be worshiped to validate its existance or creative powers? atheists dont argue that we are the center of the universe, they argue we arent and there is no evidence god is. even your argument states that humans are subject to the scrutiny of god in he want for us to worship him. by the transittive if you are wanted by the center of attention you are the center of attention. thats why lucifer defected, do you remember your bible?
verumINscientia 2 years ago
Well done, 5 stars!!! Are you prescribed to any religion or are you a Free Thinker/Atheist?
jeremiad86 2 years ago
> Well done, 5 stars!!!
Thanks!
> Are you prescribed to any religion or are you a Free Thinker/Atheist?
I'm an atheist, but for the most part, I focus on skepticism of organized religions, not the broad notion of "a Creator." My video series "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers" explains why.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Brilliant video Todd! Getting better and better! I'll be able to say "I knew him when..."
templarart 2 years ago
> Brilliant video Todd!
Thanks!
> I'll be able to say "I knew him when..."
Ha-ha—it's been over 5 years now! (From back when I was that fake Christian on that Apologetic Christian yahoo group.) You can also correctly say that you're the one who persuaded me to discuss my book here on YouTube.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Parent analogy? How about: Your parents have NEVER talked to you ever! You've never seen them, have no photos or memories of them but some guy in a suit tells you that they're real and if you don't love them - they'll torture you forever sometime in the future! Oh wait - there are other guys in suits all claiming that they know your parents and what rules you should follow. Has this ever happened? No. Parents don't behave like gods because parents are real.
templarart 2 years ago 2
> Parent analogy? .... Parents don't behave like gods because parents are real.
Excellent analogy! Hope you don't mind if I steal it in some time in the future (I'll give you full credit!).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
But he is NOT admirable. And the orders he gave in the bible, I do not think I could obey, and in the end I STILL do not find that it was good, to end entire civilizations, when he could have revealed himself to them and had them saved that way. If he were the most admirable thing, then we would, automatically admire him, we would not need to be commanded or prompted to such admiration.
Ravindra9689 2 years ago 3
Also, my parents never "commanded" me as a child, they explain all consequences, and i follow accordingly. Not "Do this, or else", there was no need for an "Or else", I did the things I was suppose to do because I saw that they were the right things to do. Anything they told me that were "For my own good", they fully explained,and i understood, so they were not commands per se. And if i disagreed, and had a logical reason to, they listened.
Ravindra9689 2 years ago 2
We are COMMANDED to worship him...out of love? Since when is the command to worship, out of love? We do admire things, and people, but not because these things or people demand such admiration, but because we give it freely, and if we don't, we are not sent to oblivion. We admire because we think that thing deserves it, yahweh is a monster, regardless of whether or not it created the universe, even if it did I don't think I could admire that.
-Ravi.
Ravindra9689 2 years ago 2
While I enjoyed this series, there is one issue I must comment on. I completely disagree with the use of "suffering" as a replacement for "evil" and the latter seems a much more apt description of what this problem is all about...
1. The word "evil" has not historically been limited to human choices. Not only has the problem of evil when presented by skeptics usually included mention of disease, famine, disaster, etc., dictionaries also associate the word with these things...
TheStephenation 2 years ago
...I'm looking at the OED entry on the word right now, and only when the word is specifically used to describe a person or a person's actions am I seeing it limited in that way. Otherwise, the word is associated with terms like, bad, harm, injury, disease, misfortune, ill, etc.
2. The name "problem of evil" is quite old and established, making it clear what we're talking about, assuming we're talking about the same sort of problem, which I think we are. Apologists have used the free will...
TheStephenation 2 years ago
...rebuttal to the problem of evil and, when evils that don't involve human decisions (like earthquakes) are pointed out, apologists fail to address this. They ignore it. I have seen this a LOT. They might also fall back on mumbo jumbo (like we cannot comprehend the infinite), but it seems like the response is usually to just ignore that "free will" doesn't address these things. Changine the name to "problem of suffering" wouldn't seem to help here.
3. The problem encompasses more than just...
TheStephenation 2 years ago
...suffering. If not "evil" I would call it "the problem of bad" or "the problem of harm" rather than limiting it to suffering. For example, an earthquake happens and a man is instantly killed by falling rubble before he even knows what's going on. He did not suffer. I would still consider this to be part of the problem we're talking about. Wouldn't you?
4. Not all suffering is necessarily bad. Actually, I'm not sure how I feel about this point, but I'm throwing it out there...
TheStephenation 2 years ago
...just in case. If my own actions cause me mild discomfort and this motivates me to do something good, I don't really consider the minor suffering in this case to be problematic.
Anyway, sorry about spamming your video with comments. I hate the 500-character limit.
TheStephenation 2 years ago
> If not "evil" I would call it "the problem of bad" or "the problem of harm" rather than limiting it to suffering.
True, the word "suffering" has its limits as well. Maybe I should say "bad stuff"? Or maybe it's just best to just jump right to the issues and ask "Why did God create the likes tapeworms and tsunamis?"---and thereby avoiding semantics that allow theists to seek refuge in easy answers like "man brings evil upon himself" or "sometimes suffering benefits us."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Ooh, if we do that, will they immediately jump to the "fallen creation" claim? I don't think I could keep a straight face for that one...
TheStephenation 2 years ago
Comment removed
Cyrathil 2 years ago
I remember a case where the theist argued that Trisomy-21 was the effects of sin on the body, and that the imperfections of the eye were caused by sin, so it's very likely they would blame anything on sin, whether it makes sense or not.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Your kinetochores have sinned! They should have repented!
TheStephenation 2 years ago
"rabid puppy. . ."
How exactly is the comparison between a gazelle/zebra and a rabid puppy about to bite a baby valid? Unless they stampede, you most likely aren't going to find many people dying by these animals. So the original analogy of pushing the boulder at the puppy is still apt... There's still an active will inflicting suffering on a mostly undeserving creature. If you can show me how these herbivores are deserving of suffering, I'd love to hear it.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
> If you can show me how these herbivores are deserving of suffering, I'd love to hear it.
Maybe the gazelle's experience of being torn apart alive by a pack of hyenas on earth makes heaven all that more enjoyable!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Cyrathil
I would like to know your viewpoints on a couple of these issues.
Is killing wrong, or do circumstances matter? For example, is there a moral difference between killing for fun and killing for self defense?
In the same way, is allowing animal suffering wrong? What are the reasons God allows this? Is it possible God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing creature suffering?
I think it is possible, and I will share a couple of my thoughts in my upcoming response.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Epydemic2020 "Cyrathil
I would like to know your viewpoints on a couple of these issues. Is killing wrong, or do circumstances matter? "
If you want to claim there is such a thing as objective morality, circumstances do not matter.
In objective morality things are either black or white, there is no such thing as shades of grey.
justintempler 2 years ago
Justintempler
circumstances do matter in objective morality. Be careful not to confuse absolute and objective morality. Objective morality merely means it exists regardless of human opinion and does not change based upon human opinion. An action is either moral or immoral based on its circumstances, but does not change with time.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
It's very much possible that an all loving deity could decide that there would be a situation which the innocent must suffer for the greater good. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent doesn't though. Omnibenevolence implies outside of restraints on power. It's the common reasosn people give in the First Cause argument... God is outside of this world, and isn't hindered by our problems. If he isn't hindered by our restraints, our moral standards are moot because he wouldn't have to make concessions.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Cyrathil
God cannot do the logically impossible. For example, He cannot force free will (and therefore humans can choose to do evil). I made a video called "omni vs omni and really big rocks" which explains that in much more detail.
I will lay out a possible reason I think an all powerful, loving being would allow animal suffering. Stay tuned.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 3:
> I will lay out a possible reason I think an all powerful, loving being would allow animal suffering. Stay tuned.
I think the language here should not be that the said-Creator "allows" animal suffering, but *designed* animal suffering—that is, created life in a way that requires creatures to go through terror and pain. To say "God allows animal suffering" sounds like someone else came up with the proposal, and God simply gave it a green light.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
But no, if there's a Creator out there that designed all life, the set-up is His alone: the good, bad, & ugly.
*Could* there be a good reason for such a violent arrangement? Absolutely! Looking forward to your perspective (including answers from the alleged Master Designer's alleged Holy Book).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
BTW, there's a great video from National Geographic called "Predators and Prey NaTgeO." I have it saved in my favorites. I'm interested in seeing how well your response can make sense out of this video's close-up look at the violently (although with often disturbingly beautiful side effects) genetic arms race of nature.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
1 of 7:
Hi again Epydemic,
BONUS ISSUE: I don't know if you want to limit the focus of your upcoming video response to predation, but related to the subject of "things that you would think an Omnipotent Loving God wouldn't create" is birth defects (at least those inherent in nature, rather than those caused by man's pollutants).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 7: A particularly shocking birth defect is harlequin ichthyosis, a skin disease that affects a small minority of both humans and animals. This disease makes the skin is so thick that it cannot fold and becomes the equivalent of large scales, and movement causes the skin to crack.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 7: Sufferers are also facially deformed: their ears, nose, and eyelids are either partially developed or entirely absent. Their lips are pulled by their dry skin and fixed into a wide grimace. Their arms, feet, and fingers are almost always deformed in such a way that they cannot bend properly.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 7: Harlequin ichthyosis usually kills its victims within a few days: their thick skin doesn't allow for normal heat regulation, it restricts normal breathing, and their cracked & broken skin doesn't adequately keep water in or keep bacteria out (thus they usually die from infection).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 7: Search on YouTube for "harlequin ichthyosis" and you'll get lots of videos of these babies. But the disease strikes animals too: the article "Harlequin Ichthyosis in Two Greater Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros)" discusses calves with the disease, and the article "Harlequin ichthyosis (ichq): a juvenile lethal mouse mutation with ichthyosiform dermatitis" discusses mice.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 7: Again, I'm not saying an Omnipotent Deity COULDN'T have a Loving Reason for creating harlequin ichthyosis . . . but I think the question "Why would God do this?" is a legitimate one. After all, when humans inflict birth defects on others (via pollutants or unsafe medication), they're not at all considered "good"--instead, they're persecuted for crimes.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
7 of 7: Yet if the Christian God is the one to inflict birth defects, Christians would never (or least, rarely) accuse Him of committing a crime—at least not out loud.
Still, many Christians *are* privately tortured with the question of "WHY did God do this?" To quote from Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Faith," the problem of apparently purposeless pain is "the question mark turned like a fishhook in the human heart" (pg 28).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
You're confusing the way things are with the way things should be according to logic. It's somewhat like you saying the dog being crushed is a logical absolute, or it's logically unalterable that the gazelle be eaten by the lion instead of a system of photosynthesis for all creatures, or (as is our case) the ability to create all the proteins we need, without relying on other creatures to make it for us.How is that denied by logic? My computer is shot, so I'll watch the video once it's repaired.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Cyrathil
I am not confusing a physical and a logical contradiction.
Lets take "forced free will" for instance. "free" and "forced" are contradictory terms. The second law of logic (the law of non-contradiction) shows us something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. Because free and forced are opposites, a persons will cannot be both free and forced, it must be one or the other. To say God should make forced free will, is to say He should do the logically contradictory.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Cyrathil
I was arguing that "forcing free will" is logically impossible, not that the gazelle being eaten was the only logically possible scenario.
God did, could, and will create a world without animal suffering. However, on earth animal suffering is better than the other alternatives. I argue for that more clearly in my video response.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Your main point in your response, actually dealing with this specific point of suffering, seemed to be that there is no justification to claim that Yahweh allows suffering with malice as his intent, and so we can't label his actions as evil. If that's not accurate, please correct me.
With this summation, I disagree. A common story I hear being a psychology major is of a woman who is murdered in her apartment complex while the other neighbors just listen to her yelling. (con't.)
Cyrathil 2 years ago
When people are told of this story, they instantly claim that those who are not doing what is in their power to help are doing wrong, whether they are being malicious or not. Whether that's a good conclusion, it makes the point that with this society at least, it's considered bad to not do what you can to help others, with reasonable restrictions. In this sense, Yahweh has plenty of ability (omniscience and omnipotence) and yet watches on as the suffering occurs.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
We could even make a case that he, in the prior example, set it up so the woman would be murdered. Out of all the arrangements, his omniscience and omnipotence made it a world where animals, including us, would be unable to survive without other animals making our proteins and energy. Unless you wish to redefine omniscience, Yahweh would know when creating on that first day what his creation would lead to, and instead of allowing the animals the ability to produce whatever they need, he kept it.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Cyrathil
You omitt that God can, did, and will make a world void of animal suffering (eden and heaven). Animal suffering exists on this earth, but the remedies to fix it are more costly than the price of allowing it. That is my argument from the "irregular world".
You could also argue God could create a world that would work perfectly without Him. However, I would argue that would be the ultimate deception.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Whether Yahweh has done it in the past is a question of faith to begin with, but to grant that the several billion years that has been which there has been suffering is nothing compared to the time without suffering during Eden, assuming it ever existed, and the time that will come (so we keep getting told) is hardly tenable. It still doesn't avoid the fact that Yahweh decided that this suffering was worth it, despite it's being wholly unnecessary, given the omniscience and omnipotence aspect.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Cyrathil
I have a hard time finding your arguments involving length of time persuasive. You seem to be saying that a few billion years allowing suffering which may lead to a greater number of people experiencing an eternal bliss in heaven is somehow not worth it.
You can argue whether or not you think Christianity is true in its claims (a separate argument), but the problem of animal suffering does little to nothing to bring to question the consistency of Christian teachings.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I have a hard time finding the idea that an omnipotent deity would prefer to allow his creation to suffer unnecessarily, which is what the gazelle being eaten is, when the application of a different way is conceivable by people who are much less than omnipotent unpersuasive. If I'm able to conceive of something that allows less suffering, and I'm not omnipotent and hardly loving of most things, then I'm fairly sure that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity could do it without problem.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Cyrathil
I have not argued that God cannot physically make a world without suffering. In fact, it would be very easy for God to divinely intervene and stop every instance of potential animal suffering. But who is to say that a world with God intervening all the time is superior to the world we currently have?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I've never said we would need Yahweh to intervene. I said that it wouldn't be too complicated to make it so that unnecessary suffering is avoidable. Going back to the original statement, way back in the beginning, the gazelle is being eaten alive because the lion requires the protein and energy which is stored in the gazelle. Without that requirement, all the suffering caused by predation is gone, with a few relatively simple changes to birth rate, and the animals ability to generate energy.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Again, I'm not omnipotent, and hardly as wise as the Bible makes Yahweh out to be. It would be a bit of time thinking on it for a human, but a deity with eternity, especially considering all evidence shows that there was some nearly 10 billion years before Earth shows up, it's not too hard.
On the otherhand, having the animals create their own energy would also have the benefit of fitting much more literally with the OT, what with the lack of change in species without the predation.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020
Who says what you think is "free will" is, indeed, free will? And what even constitutes free will in the first place? Who says humans really posses such a thing?
TheApatheticGuy 1 year ago 2
Isn't it a bit cruel though? I mean, it is the nature of humans to, in a way, NOT want to worship some being for all eternity. As you say, most people wouldn't want that, so why make beings which only have one purpose, that is...to worship you and make you feel like number 1 when you already know for a fact that you ARE number one? I mean, how needy do you have to be? lol, Why would you punish something for acting in concordance with its nature? It just seems strange.
Ravindra9689 2 years ago
why would a god crave so much worship and glory? Is it so insecure of itself that it needs constant praise? What about the quality of being humble... I guess god is simply no model for us to live by.
Countachcx 2 years ago
Thanks for the response. I almost didn't catch you had posted this video.
lol. My rabies/puppy analogy sounds quite ridiculous. I didn't realize that was going to make it into a video. I was just trying to demonstrate that an act is only moral or immoral given the specific circumstances.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
> My rabies/puppy analogy sounds quite ridiculous. I didn't realize that was going to make it into a video.
Sorry—I wasn't trying to make fun of you. I just think the exchange clarified our two positions.
MINE: if atheism is true, wildlife suffering is not "cruel" because no one *intended* it.
YOURS: although God did indeed create every aspect of life, there may be a Greater Good behind creature suffering that we don't know about.
(That *is* your position--correct?)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
This is a fairly accurate assessment of my position. I hold there is no reason to suspect animal suffering is evil. To do so you would have to assume the existence of suffering is malicious. I think we not only have insufficient evidence to make that claim, but also that we have good reasons to believe the contrary.
I will try and explains this better in my response. It may take me a bit longer than I intended, I have apparently caught I virus. I think that is somewhat ironic.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 7:
> To [say animal suffering is evil] you would have to assume the existence of suffering is malicious.
I think we agree that if a *human* were to buy dozens of dogs and arranged it so that they could only survive by ripping each other apart / feasting on each others' live flesh, that would be malicious. Especially because there are so many options for *not* causing suffering: buying dog food from the store, buying only however many dogs you could afford, etc.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 7:
Yet if an Intelligent Designer created all life, He did indeed organize much of life so that its survival depends on making others suffer. That in itself is no paradox, because the Intelligent Design argument doesn't necessitate that God is All-Powerful or All-Good.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 7:
Yet the Christian notion of God tells us that the Master Designer of nature, red in tooth and claw, is both All-Powerful (meaning He could design any life he wanted) *and* All-Good—which, at least by our *human* definition of good, implies a being who would NOT want to cause needless suffering.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 7:
Can suffering be purposeful and "good"? Absolutely! The needle of a vaccination, shoving someone out of the way of an oncoming car: these instances cause temporary suffering, but they serve a Greater Purpose.
*Could* there be a Greater Good behind sentencing a fawn's last seconds on earth to whimpering in fear before she is torn apart by a pack of wolves? Well, maybe there is!
But so far the only reasons I've come across from Christians are:
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 7:
(1) a bizarre interpretation of Genesis 3:17 ("Well, when God cursed the ground in reaction to human sin . . . that must have been what kicked off the whole prey-vs-predator setup),
(2) I just don't understand this aspect of God (variances: "we're too finite to comprehend the Infinite," "part of being a person of faith is living with unanswered questions," etc.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 7:
> I think we not only have insufficient evidence to make that claim, but also that we have good reasons to believe the contrary.
Eager to hear those good reasons!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
7 of 7:
> I will explain this better in my response. It may take me a [while], I have caught a virus. I think that is somewhat ironic.
I'll refrain from making any poor-taste theological jokes—hope you feel better soon!
(Taking a while to respond is certainly fine with me, as I really *should* be focusing on my job right now instead of on YouTube. As an atheist, however, I'm of course NOT saying that God made you sick in order to slow you up so I could concentrate on my work!)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
you say that the existence of god cannot be disproven,but only logically imbalanced (an appropriate term i guess),the fact of the matter is that the belief is age old information and therefore-IN MY OPINION,it should have been disregarded a very long time ago because all this dwelling on it by theists is only creating problems in the world.
"god is punishing us through human suffereing"...this is a very dangerous and lazy way to think.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
> [suffering is punishment] is a very dangerous and lazy way to think
It also simply doesn't make sense of observations. It would have us believe that antelopes need "more punishment" than elephants, and the starving 3rd world children need more punishment than godless middle-class Americans such as myself.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
i agree,and this is how religion and politics are similar,politics creates problems in the physical world as religion fabricated god,faking reality (mysticism) to convince people to "help" others by throwing their hard earned money providing only a temporary solution,no problems created-no bogus livelihoods.
people fear imprisonment so they "behave" themselves,people fear death so they deny themselves for god so they can get into heaven.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
It seem like a perfect, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator could have at a minimum created a universe that was consistent with a universe created by a perfect, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator. From my perspective the universe looks just the opposite.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
> From my perspective the universe looks just the opposite.
I feel that one thing that gives the theists ammo is that if you take a *highly selective* look at nature, you really can see much beauty and even appearances of "perfection."
As I wrote in a comment in response to Epydemic, he can admire the beauty of the gazelle in flight, but has to block out the reason that it's running.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
It may not make the Christian God impossible, but it must change the qualities we attribute to the Christian God. Suffering and hell must shoot down the notion of either benevolence and/or omnipotence. You can' just change the definition of those terms - that is not a fair argument, that is logocide.
Which sums up part of your argument.
zarkoff45 2 years ago 2
> that is logocide.
But you can't deny the apologist his logocide—it's a key part of his arsenal!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
But what if the baby about to be bitten by a rabid puppy in the path of an incoming boulder was about to press a button to open the door to a cage of wild hyenas outside of which an innocent gazelle was grazing on grass?
I think that's morally acceptable, because it will save that poor grass!
gremlinn7 2 years ago 2
> But what if the baby about to be bitten by a rabid puppy in the path of an incoming boulder was about to press a button to open the door to a cage of wild hyenas outside of which an innocent gazelle was grazing on grass? I think that's morally acceptable, because it will save that poor grass!
Ha-ha—*excellent* point!!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I can disprove an invisible pink unicorn. 1) Without light there is no color. 2) To become invisible, a unicorn would have to bend light around it. Therefore, the unicorn could not be both pink and invisible at the same time. I can not, however, disprove the existence of an invisible unicorn.
besvr 2 years ago
> I can disprove an invisible pink unicorn. 1) Without light there is no color. 2) To become invisible, a unicorn would have to bend light around it. Therefore, the unicorn could not be both pink and invisible at the same time.
Faith in Her Majestic Pinkness *transcends* humans' puny attempt at logic!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Adaptions that are in themselves incredible but seem to cause excessive suffering are not the only way of looking at it. What about suboptimal adaptions such as the inside-out retinas of vertebrates or the fact our food and air tubes fuse in our throats? These not only make us less fit as organisms, they also cause actual suffering.
ChrisJMoor 2 years ago
> What about suboptimal adaptions such as the inside-out retinas of vertebrates or the fact our food and air tubes fuse in our throats? These not only make us less fit as organisms, they also cause actual suffering
Very well said—although I suppose the theist could always say that such instances of suffering "benefits" us (albeit in mysterious ways!).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Chew your food. Ah yes, choking, (possibly to death) reminds us this. I benefit from weeding my garden too, as the healthy exercise reminds me that to create requires hard work.
Either that or they say that this is the curse of sin, inwhich case they must admit that adam and eve were very definitely not human anyway, at least to start with. Which possibly leads to the admission that living things have changed over time (shhhhhh), ;)
ChrisJMoor 2 years ago
I love this point and good video but don't most Christians simply go,
"We live in a fallen Earth"... Argument over...?
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
> I love this point and good video
Thanks!
> but don't most Christians simply go, "We live in a fallen Earth"... Argument over...?
Oddly enough, Epydemic doesn't (although I discuss that argument in my video series on "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Reasons vs. the 1 Naturalistic").
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
"What if the puppy has rabies and was about to bite a baby?" That begs the question "What in that case accounts for the rabies and the aggressive instinct to bite?" If you use prevention of suffering as an excuse for the existence of a lesser suffering, then you have to account for even more of it, making your position that much worse.
cyxgun 2 years ago 2
> If you use prevention of suffering as an excuse for the existence of a lesser suffering, then you have to account for even more of it, making your position that much worse
Excellent point!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Very nicely done. Excellent job distinguishing between the "problem of evil" and the "problem of suffering." The latter is indeed *far* more challenging and, better still, far more reflective of the facts of reality.
Epydemic is a nice guy, but he often gives me the impression that he's just throwing against the wall whatever and as much as he can think of and hoping that at least some of it will stick.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 2
> Epydemic is a nice guy, but he often gives me the impression that he's just throwing against the wall whatever and as much as he can think of and hoping that at least some of it will stick.
He's also only 21, and I have to admit that he's far more articulate than I was at his age . . . this is why I end this series by saying that as he further hones his arguments he may just end up a skeptic—and if so, I think he would be an excellent one!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Indeed. By the way, my remark wasn't intended to be harsh. It was in the spirit of what I might write on an articulate student's paper that did the same thing.
:-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Epydemic2020 is an ignorant Holocaust defender.
Perrine234 2 years ago
I asked this same question on a xtian forum a while ago. I didn't get one single answer that even came close to the question.
You can sort of boil the arguement down to this statement....
If you wrong me (in any way) is it ok for me to nail your puppy to a tree?
We "wronged" God with the apple thing, so he condemns all life to suffer. Nice guy. :(
jamesmaybrick2001 2 years ago 2
> We "wronged" God with the apple thing, so he condemns all life to suffer.
It doesn't quite even square with the "eye for eye" passages, let alone the "turn the other cheek" ones.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Great job Todd. I often run into the 'but we are in a 'fallen creation" response when I ask about suffering in nature - ichneumon wasps and other nasties. That implies that 'sin' has a creative force, for which they have no response. It's as if all was perfection in Eden until the fall and after that all restraint was taken off nature (Pandora's box was opened - to borrow from the Greeks) and we get things like bubonic plague, Downs syndrome etc, etc.. Thanks for the shout out to the IPU! (pbuh)
ogrimdoombringer 2 years ago
> I often run into the 'but we are in a 'fallen creation" response when I ask about suffering in nature
I discuss that argument in my video series on "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Reasons vs. the 1 Naturalistic" . . . but since Epydemic doesn't use it, I didn't feel the need to bring it up.
> Thanks for the shout out to the IPU!
Her Majestic Pinkness is in my thoughts always.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Wildlife suffering is morally neutral? A world with creature suffering is a worse world than one without. Why would the creator allow rabies to infect the puppy in the first place?
It doesn't matter if natural laws are considered evil, since they are not (by definition) good; the problem of suffering is only a problem for the a benevolent God, of the kind that would resurrect us after death or send his son to die for our sins.
unassumption 2 years ago
> Why would the creator allow rabies to infect the puppy in the first place?
I guess the Loving Omnipotent Creator infected the puppy for a reason we're too finite to comprehend!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Hey Todd - your book arrived. I'm going to get stuck into reading it this week :-)
AuntieDiluvian